R4440 (10)

n. Brian
Paul Carlson [[e-mail]]
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:05 PM
Beckwith, Loretta A SAW
[e-mail]; Wrenn, Brian
LTLT Comments on Needmore Road Project - Corps Action ID #SAW-2010-01472
Ms. Beckwith,
e Land Trust for the Little Tennessee (LTLT) with this email endorses the comments submitted by a close partner
iization, the Little Tennessee Watershed Association to the US Army Corps of Engineers concerning the proposed
project by the NCDOT through the heart of the Needmore Tract in Macon and Swain Counties in North Carolina.
We feel strongly that the NCDOT Alternative E would have drastic and invasive impacts on the Needmore Tract that
thi:a and other organizations worked very hard to protect in the public trust in the early part of the past decade. As such
we request that the water quality permits needed for this project to proceed not be issued.
Alternative E (as well as Alternative D) fails to meet the stated purposes and need of the project as laid out by the
NC:DOT as it does not avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the existing high quality natural resources within and
surrounding the Little Tennessee River at Needmore.
i
I
Thank you for the opportunity to add these comments.
PaIul J. Carlson
Executive Director
Thle Land Trust for the Little Tennessee
P.O. Box 1148
Franklin. NC 28744
Brian
Fi•om: Trish & Doug [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 3:21 PM
Ti): Horton, Stephanie; Deaton, Shannon L.; Gledhill-earley, Renee; Sandbeck, Peter; Mcgee,
I Melba; Chambers, Marla J; Marella Buncick, NCFWS; Lori Beckwith, USACE, Linda Pearsall,
NCDENR; Robbins, Jamille A; Wrenn, Brian; Kenneth Parr, TVA
Subject: NC-DOT Proposed Needmore Road Project R-4440
Attachments: BME Ltr to Army Corps 10-08-10 Word copy.docx
Attached is a copy of Blue Mountain Engineering's comments on NC-DOT's proposed Needmore
Rioad Project
R:-4440, Army Corps of Engineers Action ID #SAW-2010-01472 for use by the Merger Team in
r(I?aching a
recommendation to NC-DOT regarding the future of the project.
i
Thanks for reviewing, Doug Woodward
i 3
1Afrenn, Brian
From: [e-mail]
Sint: Monday,-October 11, 2010 10:01 AM
Tip: [e-mail]
Si abject: DOT's observation
Dear Sir:
Need answers from NCDOT.
FLOODING-yes it floods. But notjust on Needmore Road. I have seen the Little flood many times, and many times traffic
c<Iinnot go through it. This happens all over the world, not just on Needmore. If it floods on the unpaved roads, won't it
also flood on paved roads? Does a road need to be wide or narrow to be flooded?
MAINTENANCE-yes maintenance costs. Cleaning ditches and mowing will cost the same whether road is paved or
unpaved; wide or narrow. Paved roads will need pot holes repaired, unpaved will need gravel. Wouldn't a wider road
cost more in maintenance?
SEDIMENT-the sediment on the river starts in N. Georgia and continues the length of Macon Co. How can 3.3 miles
cause so much more damage than miles and miles of ongoing construction, agriculture, and development? Sediment can
bye very damaging to wildlife and the life of the river.
i
OPERATIONAL-when a road is not operational, it does increase travel time and out of pocket costs. This is true
everywhere and it happens everywhere. It doesn't matter if it is paved or unpaved; wide or narrow. Most all roads in
Niorth Carolina are affected by slides, fog, ice, and snow.
GAMELANDS-this road is on NC gamelands! There is no need for school bus stops, parking lots, red lights, stores,
shopping centers, subdivisions, etc. It is seasonal and vacationers come to enjoy the "great outdoors." Fishermen fish,
hunters hunt, hikers hike, rafters raft, walkers walk, etc, and Needmore is the place they come to enjoy it all. None of
thiese need a highway.
i
COST-this huge amount of money (over 13 million) would be better spent on a high volume road where it would be
wanted and needed?
'E;incerely
Judie P. Whitus
536 Meadows Road
F ranklin, NC 28734
hitus4(cD,aol.com)
1
Susan Ervin
1120 Meadows Rd.
Franklin, NC 28734
Statement for the public hearing on Needmore Road, September 21, 2010
My name is Susan Ervin. I live not far upstream of Needmore in Macon County and
am a frequent visitor to Needmore, for walking and river gazing.
First, I would like to give my support to the Little Tennessee Watershed Association
resolution. They've got everything right.
I have been a Macon County Planning Board member for over a decade. I do not
speak for the Planning Board, but my long-time participation in planning issues
informs my view.
Recently, the state government has required certain changes in DOT policy, seeing
the need for profound reform. It was first explained to me as "no more decisions
made in smoky back rooms" It was felt that decisions were being made for political
or other reasons and not because of the actual need or value of projects. In 2008,
the state auditor reported that taxpayers paid $152.4 million in unnecessary
construction costs during a three year period.
One effort at reform is a program to work with counties on a comprehensive
transportation plan (CTP), in which local leaders and citizens establish principles,
goals, and priorities, and develop a plan for future transportation needs in their
county, which will serve as guidance to the DOT. Also, counties will need to have a
comprehensive land use plan to be used in concert with the transportation plan, if
they are to have their projects prioritized. Macon County is doing both of these
things, and as part of developing the comprehensive land use plan, the Planning
Board established a committee to work on transportation issues. I was on that
committee. Excerpts from our recommendations:
Provide safe roads while minimizing impact on the mountain landscape, environment,
cultural/historic sites, and prime agricultural land.... Design so the natural landscape
is dominant, not the road----use context sensitive design..... Preserve the sense of
place.
Quoting from the NCDOT document NCDOT Context Sensitive Solutions: Goals
and Working Guidelines : "NCDOT...will be advocates for the natural environment
as we provide the "lightest touch possible. " ..... "Seeking first to understand the values
and interests of the communities and genuinely evaluating the input prior to pre-
judging responses. " .... "Pursue CSS solutions for projects along naturally,
historically, and culturally significant properties.... and involve the stakeholders in the
development of the design. "
A state Transportation Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Group was formed also
as part of this reform. In reading their "Game Plan," I discovered that their first
priority is "... to reduce the land use and transportation disconnect"
In a DOT document on Transportation Reform and the STIP, it is said:
In the introduction to the NCDOT document on CSS goals, it is said that "Citizens
of our State have become increasingly aware of rapid changes to their natural and
human environments. Requests to modify transportation infrastructure projects to
protect natural and human environmental resources have, in some cases, turned into
demands with lawsuits. Context sensitive solutions is a national approach ...to change
the way we plan, design, construct, and maintain our transportation infrastructure.
The DOT preferred alternative does not minimize the impact on the mountain
landscape and environment, as indicated by four out of seven consulting agencies
and the statements of professional biologists and land conservationists. It does not
preserve the sense of place. No longer would families want to play in the water right
along the road, or walkers stroll, or runners pass safely, or large trees form an over-
hanging canopy. DOT has not yet listened to the values and interests of the
communities, and has pre-judged the outcome. They have not yet involved the
stakeholders in the development of the design. Their preferred alternative greatly
increases, rather than reduces, the land use and transportation disconnect. They
have not changed the way in which they plan or design.
If, despite all these guidelines and promises, DOT is still not able to actually accept
any alternative to their standard designs, it is past time to change the standard. In
mountainous settings and areas of natural and cultural significance, appropriate
alternative standards or a process to over-ride the usual standards should be
established. Needmore Road should become a precedent-setting case. The one-size-
fits-all approach is incompatible with the mountain landscape, the desires of the
local citizens and leaders, and the stated goals and guidelines of the NCDOT.
Having built a case using DOTS own priorities and policies, I, along with the
consulting state agencies, local citizens, community organizations, planning groups,
local government, sportsmen, and state and local environmental groups, reject
Alternatives D and E and request that you work with us to find an appropriate
alternative to solve the problems, but not destroy the irreplaceable qualities of
Needmore.
Brian
Dnet Email [[e-mail]]
Saturday, October 09, 2010 10:17 PM
Loretta.A. Beckwith @usace. army. m it
[e-mail]; Wrenn, Brian
CorpsAction ID#SAW-2010-01472
pport DOT's Alternative 1 of No-Build with periodically improving the road with safe permeable materials
vel, crushed glass). I also suggest DOT post periodic speed limit signs of 20 mph and strategically install
ed bumps (can be movable) to help manage proper speed. Dust will be significantly reduced. In prolonged
ught conditions, a truck with hoses can spray the 3.3 miles with water. Decreasing traffic will solve the
or concerns without spending money, possibly harming the river and degrading the character and health
the surrounding ecosystem.
iicles not using Needmore Road, for scenic or light recreational use may use parallel Route 28, the normal
red road. For most purposes, it is actually shorter. From 28 at Lost Bridge throgh Needmore to Rte 74
isters 10.3 miles. Using Rte. 28 from Lost Bridge to 74 measures 9 miles. The mileage on 74 from 28 to
edmore is 3 miles. It would be more advantageous for DOT to use the $13 million to straighten out curves
Route 28 than tamper with soil and rock on Needmore which is a fragile marine ecosystem, designated
habitat and preserved game lands and wildlife refuge.
im not a biologist, but the dust and sediment factors along Needmore seem a minor concern. Is there a way
measure point-source for settling dust? The river moves sediment according to speed of flow in certain
aces and heavy rains and other weather conditions. There are more important places to discuss sediment
oblems. There are more important contaminents to consider as untreated runoff, pesticides, fertilizers and
the agencies do not accept Alternative I with amendments, I would favor Alternative B with stipulation that
)T investigates the success of other States in adding stabilization materials which are permeable and safe.
wever, any improvement to the road will invite increased traffic and speed which will negate the purpose of
eating this rather special place and bring unforeseen future problems. Please consider recommending doing
except slowing and eliminating traffic with simple speed limit signs and speed bumps.
Ileborah E. Boots 64 McCoy Hill Road Franklin, North Carolina 28734 [phone]
Bill McLarney [bilImclarney@gmail. com]
Friday, October 08, 2010 12:32 PM
Loretta.A. Beckwith@usace. army. m it
marella [e-mail]; Wrenn, Brian; 'Jenny Sanders'
Needmore Road
Corps Action ID #SAW-2010-01472
Ms. Beckwith:
Please forgive any redundancy here; I have been involved in a lot of correspondence on the Needmore Road
I just want to make sure I have covered all bases before October 13.
I am unalterably opposed to Alternatives D and E as described by the DOT for the Needmore Road. As I stated
the hearing in Swain County, turning the Needmore Road into a wider, faster, paved highway would invite traffic
rich presently does not use this road. Prior to the creation of the Needmore Game Land, this road served local
sidents and recreational/scientific users of the Needmore Tract. It should continue to serve, and possibly be improved
r, these purposes. Optimum conditions for these limited purposes are not compatible with a vision of the road as a
ortcut to western Swain County and Fontana Reservoir, or as part of a larger highway corridor concept.
From an environmental viewpoint "improvements" as contemplated under Alternatives D and E would detract
m the recreational experience on and along the river, endanger wildlife using the Needmore area as a forest corridor
tween the Nantahalas and the Cowees, and replace an existing sediment problem with an increased amount of
Ilutants associated with paved surfaces. In addition, while DOT engineers optimistically project their ability to deal
th the acid rock issue, there is no guarantee that -for example - a major flood event would not occur during the
istruction period. For this and other reasons, I consider cutting into "hot" rock to be an unacceptable risk, given the
portance of the biological and recreational resource at stake. For all of these reasons I consider that any project
rich results in a larger, faster road is incompatible with the conservation purposes for which the Needmore Game Land
s created - and to which the DOT contributed.
The cost of Alternatives D and E, as projected to the DOT, seems to be disproportional to the length of road to
affected, to the stated need, or to any benefits which might be realized. I would note two items which are not
luded in the estimates offered by the DOT, but which might be included: 1) DOT would logically be required to
npensate for a portion of the mitigation credits they received for their contribution toward purchase of the Duke
orgy Needmore Tract. 2) Replacement of the bridge over Tellico Creek would necessarily constitute a separate DOT
)ject, but would obviously be necessary.
This is outside my area of expertise, but I also question the assertion that a larger, faster Needmore Road would
safer. While the risk of certain types of accidents would be reduced, the danger of high speed, potentially fatal
lisions increases with increased speed and traffic volume. In addition to this general observation, I would point out
a factor specific to the Needmore Road. Much recreational use of the river is accessed directly from the road. Thus,
lestrian use, including by small children, is unusually high. It is unusual in the summer not to encounter people in the
dway. The contemplated "improvements" would inhibit recreational use of the river by some people and expose
ers to increased danger.
There are many points in the EA for this project which might be criticized. I will limit myself to one which is well
my area of expertise. With the exception of the benthic macroinvertebrate survey, the information presented
"aquatic communities" (pp. 45-46) seems superficial and hastily assembled, as exemplified by the citation of a
mussel shell and a single salamander. With respect to the fish list, the authors of the EA clearly did not avail
elves of the abundant data collected by my organization (Little Tennessee Watershed Association) and numerous
iment agencies (TVA, NCWRC, USFWS) on the aquatic biota of the Little Tennesssee and its tributaries in
1
nore. The list of fish presented includes at least 2 species (longnose dace and white sucker) which I would
lly expect not to be found within the project area. More significantly, they cite rosyside dace (Clinostomus
oides). Here I must note that Clinostomus in the upper Little Tennessee watershed have been determined to
ent a new, still undescribed species, commonly referred to as the smoky dace, endemic to the upper Little
ssee watershed. There are populations of this rare endemic species in some of the streams which cross the
nore Road, and it should be given consideration similar to that given to the other Endangered, Threatened and
I Concern species mentioned in the EA. Given that the unique biota of the Little Tennessee River between
in and Fontana, including the Needmore area, formed one of the principal justifications for acquiring the
nore Tract and giving it protected area status, the weakness of this section of the EA should be considered a
s defect in the document.
The DOT correctly identifies the unpaved Needmore Road as a locally significant source of excess sediment to
Little Tennessee River, a fact informally corroborated during my own studies of the spotfin chub. Paving would
rtainly alleviate this problem. However, it is hubristic to leap from this conclusion to a justification of a paving and
alignment project of the magnitude contemplated by the DOT as a conservation measure. In my opinion the balance
the trade-offs involved would be highly negative.
In the absence of a better solution, I would choose Alternative A (the "no action" alternative) in preference to D
E, which seem to me to reflect a concern with speed and a certain element of convenience for some to the exclusion
environmental considerations and the legitimate concerns of current users of the road. However, as a frequent user
the Needmore Road myself, and recognizing the legitimate concerns of my neighbors in the area, along with the
iimentation problem, I would suggest that more detailed consideration be given to Alternatives B and C. With respect
Alternative B, information presented at the Swain County hearing and other recent meetings strongly suggests that
re sort of stabilization short of asphalt might be effective in accommodating both environmental and safety
Thank you for your attention. If there is any other information I can provide, including information related to
's long term biological monitoring effort in the Needmore area, please do not hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
Dr. William O. McLarney
1120 Meadows Rd.
Franklin, North Carolina 28734
Brian Wrenn,
have a B.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of North Carolina at Asheville and I am writing this
After because I am opposed to Alternatives D & E that were proposed for the Needmore Road (SR
364/SR1114) by the DOT. I was raised in Macon County and frequently enjoy taking trips along the
eedmore Road. It is the nice perk of living in Cowee (northern Macon County) that there is a place like
eedmore to go fishing or simply to experience the peaceful tranquility of the river. However, the proposed
Itematives D & E present enormous environmental as well as aesthetic problems:
• Bigger is not better and widening the road to a paved 2 lane will make the Needmore area more
dangerous to use than ever. I have seen people speed down this road and flip their vehicles from
sheer recklessness- The reason the Needmore Game lands doesn't get too much traffic is because of
the dirt and gravel, which prevents most who are in a hurry from using this as a direct route between
Swain and Macon County. Changing the road to allow faster traffic will only invite in more people with
more potentially reckless drivers. Families and friends with children use the Needmore for recreational
activities and the Needmore area will lose all appeal when heavy fast moving traffic speeds by just a
few feet away.
• An extremely rare and sensitive plant, the Mountain Camellia Stewartio ovata, lives along the
Needmore Road. The widening of the road, as well as the increased exhaust and brake dust caused by
a heavier traffic load, would encroach on the already limited and fragile stability of Mountain Camellia
populations.
• At-least one bridge would have to be widened to accommodate D & E, which would negatively affect
critical trout habitat flowing from a mountain stream into the little Tennessee River. -
• Local wildlife, including bears and coyotes, always lose when humans add new road systems. Wildlife
tends to avoid roadways, but at some point or another they need to cross. Changing from gravel to
pavement could increase vehicle/wildlife collisions because of the rise in driving speeds-
0 D & E waste millions of dollars that could be used for more environmentally friendly projects.
I understand the difficulty of the decision you have to make, but I implore you to go with Alternatives A or B.
Alternative B is a perfect choice that will help aft down on the amount of dust that emanates from the gravel
dirt road. However, if research finds that the soil stabilizers promoted in Alternative B have a severely
negative environmental impact I propose using Alternative A, to do nothing. Whichever alternative is chosen I
want to say that 1 support turnouts along the road. Turnouts would provide a space not only for parking, but
for safely moving slower traffic to the side. Alternative C is a less invasive version of D & E, but can you
imagine people speeding down a curvy 2-way AND 1 lane paved road? I would only choose Alternative C if
pervious concrete is used AND speed bumps are added to the road at appropriate intervals. Onceagain 1
would like to say that I oppose Alternatives D & E and I hope that you don't even give them a fraction of
consideration.
i
Sincere
Danielle Bouchonnet
P@@0P§@Y
OCT - 4 2010
MERgIpIg???lln
??AIg191g?

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NEEDMORE ROAD (SR 1364/SR 1114)
IMPROVEMENTS FROM TELLICO ROAD (SR
1369) IN MACON COUNTY TO EXISTING
PAVEMENT IN SWAIN COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. R-4440
WBS Number 35597
Macon and Swain Counties
Combined Public Hearing
Informal Open House 4:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Formal Presentation 7:00 p.m.
i
Southwestern Community College Swain Center
60 Almond Road, Bryson City
September 21, 2010
200 copies of this handout were reproduced at a cost of $0.36 per copy
PURPOSE AND NEED OF PROJECT
The purpose and need of the project is to improve the quality of travel for local residents
that currently use Needmore Road (SR 1364/SR 1114); reduce existing sedimentation
from Needmore Road into the Little Tennessee River; avoid or minimize adverse
impacts to the existing high quality natural resources including but not limited to water
quality, habitat and vegetation, and reduce existing maintenance costs associated with
Needmore Road.
Needmore Road is designated as a local rural route between Franklin and Bryson City.
A 1000-foot section of Needmore Road in Swain County is prone to flooding due to its
proximity to the Little Tennessee River. Frequent floods wash sediment across the
roadway and into the Little Tennessee River, make the road impassable except in four-
wheel drive vehicles, and produce substantial maintenance requirements. Additionally,
during the dry months of summer, the dust stirred up on the road settles on the
surrounding vegetation and into the river itself.
The purpose and need for improving Needmore Road involves both environmental
concerns (controlling sedimentation and maintaining the integrity of this valuable natural
habitat) and socioeconomic concerns (providing a reliable and safe local road and
reducing maintenance costs). While this road does not show a consistent capacity
problem, it does provide system linkage in an area where travel between essential
destinations is made more difficult by mountainous topography and limited available
travel corridors. When this road is not operational, it increases travel time and out of
pocket costs for the local traveler. When this road floods, it deposits additional sediment
into a high quality water resource that is a critical link of the Little Tennessee River and
that is critical habitat for multiple threatened and endangered species.
The proposed project provides an improved transportation facility and minimizes direct
impact to critical resources in the project area. • .
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Today's hearing is another important step in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT) procedure for making you, the public, a part of the project
development process. The purpose of the hearing is to obtain public input on the
location and design of the project.
Planning and environmental studies on the highway project are provided in the planning
and environmental document - State Environmental Assessment (SEA). Copies of that
report together with today's hearing maps have been available for public review at:
• NCDOT District Engineer's Office, 345 Toot Hollow Road, Bryson City
NCDOT County Maintenance Yard, 220 Windy Gap Road, Franklin
The maps are also available online at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/highway/roadway/hearingmaps by county/
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here, you are encouraged to participate by making your
comments and/or questions a part of the public record. This may be done by having
them recorded at the formal Public Hearing or by writing them on the attached comment
sheet. Several representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation are
present. They will be happy to talk with you, explain the design to you and answer your
questions. You may write your comments or questions on the comment sheet and leave
it with one of the representatives or mail them by October 21, 2010 to the following
address:
Mr. Jamille A. Robbins
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Email: jarobbins(o?ncdot.gov
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is important, however,
that THE OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF
HOW DIVERGENT THEY MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly, debates, as such,
are out of place at public hearings. Also, the public hearing is not to be used as a
POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine the location and/or design by a majority vote of
those present.
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
A post-hearing meeting will be conducted after the comment period has
ended. NCDOT staff representing Planning, Design, Traffic Operations,
Division, Right of Way, Public Involvement & Community Studies and
x.a others who play a role in the development of a project will attend this
meeting. The project will also be reviewed with federal agencies such as
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as well as state agencies
such as the N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources. When appropriate,
local government staff will attend.
All spoken and written issues are discussed at the post-hearing meeting. Most issues
are resolved at the post-hearing meeting. The NCDOT considers safety, costs, traffic
service, social impacts and public comments in making decisions. Complex issues may
require additional study and may be reviewed by higher management, Board of
Transportation Members and/or the Secretary of Transportation.
Minutes of the post-hearing meeting are prepared and a summary is available to the
public. You may request this document on the attached comment sheet.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Comments received about the location and design of the Needmore Road
improvements from the hearing will be reviewed at the post-hearing meeting and
incorporated, where feasible, into the development of final design plans for the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The NCDOT, Division of Highways, proposes improvements to SR 1364 in Macon
County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore Road) from SR 1369 (Tellico Road)
in Macon County to the existing pavement in Swain County. The total project length is
approximately 3.3 miles.
I There were five alternatives (Alternatives A-E) evaluated during the earlier project
development process. The five Alternatives are as follows:
• Alternative A - No-Build
• Alternative B - No Pave with Selective Improvements Alternative including
Binder Material/Alternative Surfacing
• Alternative C - Pave in Place -18-feet Maximum Width Alternative
• Alternative D - Pave in Place -18-foot Minimum Width Alternative
j Alternative E - Division 14 Secondary Road Standards with Design
Exceptions Alternative
From these five detailed study alternatives, Alternative E was selected as the
Recommended Alternative. See Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives for breakdown of
impacts.
Recommended Alternative
Alternative E is the recommended alternative because it provides improvements to SR
1364 in Macon County and SR 1114 in Swain County (Needmore Road) while avoiding
and/or minimizing impacts to the surrounding human and natural environment.
Alternative E provides improved quality of travel for local residents that currently use
Needmore Road; reduces existing sedimentation from Needmore Road into the Little
Tennessee River; avoids or minimizes adverse impacts to the existing high quality
natural resources including but not limited to water quality, habitat and vegetation, and
reduces existing maintenance costs associated with Needmore Road.
Alternative E upgrades Needmore Road to a paved facility, which will significantly
reduce sedimentation into the river from the existing unpaved facility, as well as reduce
the annual costs associated with maintaining Needmore Road as an unpaved, gravel
facility.
Alternative E will incorporate a typical section reflecting minimum applicable design
standards while protecting the highest quality environmental resources in the project
area.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Length: 3.3 miles
Typical Section: See Figures
Right of Way: - 50 feet
Access Control: No Control of Access
Relocatees: Residential:0
Business: 0
Estimated Cost: Alternative E
Right of Way Cost: $ 0
Construction Cost: $ 13,100,000
Total: $ 13,100,000
***See Table 2- Comparison of Alternatives for Cost Estimates for each Alternative
Current
Schedule: The tentative schedule is shown below. A number of factors can
affect a project schedule, so schedules are subject to change.
?suG „ uv-
Right of Way Acquisition N/A 7 7A NQ oj?
Construction - Federal Fi ear 2012
- F ? ?Z ?r rn?io c"As I f c 44 c vt N
x
THIS PORTION OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives
C Resource:` Alternative A r AlternaUge B Alfernatrve C5 Alte[itattve D r, Alternative E
Railroad Crossings 0 0 0 0 0
Schools , 0 0 0 0 0
ecrbational Areas and Parks I 1 1 1 1
Churches 0 0 0 0 0
Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0
ajor Utility Crossings 0 0 0 0 0
atibnal Register Eligible Properties 0 0 0 1 1
Archaeological Sites 0 0 0 0 0
Fed;-rally-Listed Species within
orcidor 13 13 13 13 13
loo,Wear Floodplain Crossings 1 I 1 1 1
Pririe Farmland 0 0 0 0 0
Residential Relocations 0 0 0 0 0
us'iness Relocations 0 0 0 0 0
a::ardous Material Sites 0 0 0 0 0
Wetland Impacts 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0.02 cres 044 cres
Stri;am Crossings 14 14 14 14 14
Stream Impacts 0 if 0 if 0 if -4Y8 2,224Z
jarian Buffer Impacts 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 17.6 res 18.1 cres
eirestrial Natural Coritmunity Impacts
- Maintained/Disturbed 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 7.0 acres 7.0 acres
- Mixed Pine Hardwood 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.8 acres 1.8 acres
- 1.0ontane Alluvial Forest 0 acres o 0 acres 0 acres 6.1 acres 6.1 acres
-licidic Cove Forest
I 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.9 acres 1.9 acres
- Montane Acidic Cliff 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.8 acres 1.8 acres
-;White Pine Forest 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 1.6 acres 1.6 acres
i;idic or "hot" Rock 0 cubic yards 0 cubic yards 0 cubic yards 0 cubic yards 24,201 bic yards
Substantial Noise Impacts 0 0 0 0
Water Supply Watershed Protected
A'reas 0 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands 1 1 1 I
Section 4(f) Impacts (Historic) 0 0 0 0
pow Income Population Impacts None None None None None
Iv[inority Population Impacts None None None None None
Construction Cost $ 0 $ 375,000 $ 5,200,000 $9,000,000 $ 13,100,000
Utility Cost $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Right of Way Cost $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total Cost $ 6 J ,_; _ $:375"000 : ,, , ' $ 5,200,000 , ^ t $ 000;000, , . ;', $'13,100,000 , ,',;
? ron*n cq
6 qO?„ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
5 OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
c° PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
'84 F ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
F'r'?or rx>?
TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR
NEEDMOORE ROAD
WIDENING
MACON & SWAIN COUNTIES
TIP PROJECT R-4440
County: NIACON/SWAIN
Div: 14 TIP# R<440
VVBS: 35597.1.1
Date: MAY 2009
Figure
4
TYPICAL SECTION IN HOT ROCK AREAS
TYPICAL SECTION IN NON-HOT ROCK AREAS

0
3
?i

w
a
O
A
a
g
m
e
m
ti
h
c
<os9A
2 2.
ril
s? ooZ=
Z m d rO--DiZ
O D;2pD
n DZfZO
2 Ln
w p
?C 2 w>
w Z ?
rn m ? ?
Z Zi
rn n
y
z

oL
l
RIGHT-OF-WAY PROCEDURES
After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right-of-way limits will
be staked in the ground. If you are an affected property owner, a Right-of-Way Agent
will contact you and arrange a meeting. The agent will explain the plans and advise you
as to how the project will affect you. The agent will inform you of your rights as a
property owner. If permanent right-of-way is required, professionals who are familiar
with real estate values will evaluate or appraise your property. The evaluations or
appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy, and then the Right-of-Way
Agent will make a written offer to you. The current market value of the property at its
highest and best use when appraised will be offered as compensation. The Department
of Transportation must:
1. Treat all owners and tenants equally.
I 2. Fully explain the owner's rights.
3. Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
a. Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
I
j RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you are a relocatee, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as part of
the project, additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is available.
You will also be provided with assistance on locations of comparable housing and/or
commercial establishments, moving procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses
may be paid for you. Additional monetary compensation is available to help
homeowners cope with mortgage increases, increased value of comparable homes,
closing costs, etc. A similar program is available to assist business owners. The Right-
of-Way Agent can explain this assistance in greater detail.
NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING RIGHT OF WAY AND
RELOCATION PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE
SIGN-IN TABLE.

COMMENT SHEET
Needmore Road (SR 1364/SR 1114) Improvements .
Combined Public Hearing
TIP Project No. R-4440 Macon and Swain Counties WBS No. 35597.1.1
NAME:
ADDRESS:
EMAIL ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
i
I
Comments may be mailed by October 21, 2010 to:
Mr. Jamille A. Robbins
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Email: larobbins(a)ncdot.gov
MOZ' ONWMADS - NMH o1and po.qwoo
869 L-669LZ ON '451818U
Je;ueO eolnieS IIeW 969L
mun ;uewuOJInu3 uewnH - lOQON
su144O2i 'd emwef
OtWa 'ON Pad d LL